Loading...
10-28-97 BZA Minutes 1572 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals . October 28, 1997 The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, October 28, 1997, in the Golden Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. Chair Robert Shaffer called the meeting to order at 7pm. Those present were: Chair Robert Shaffer; Members Herb Polachek, Mike Sell, Mahlon Swedberg; and Planning Commission Representative Richard Groger. Also present were Staff Liaison Mark Grimes and Recording Secretary Eve Lomaistro. I. Approval of Minutes - September 23 and 29, 1997 The minutes were amended as follows: Page 6, paragraph three, first sentence should read: Grimes suggested an option of doing 18 foot parking spaces with a wider aisle width instead of 20 foot and moving the building back 2 feet thereby reducing the setback variances on Nevada. The Board stated that the September 29, 1997, meeting was a continuation of the September 23, 1997, meeting, not a special meeting, and the minutes should be combined. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Sell and motion carried to approve the minutes as amended. II. The Petitions: . 921 Angelo Drive (Map 7) (97-10-41) Peter S. Knutson Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 1.3 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 33.7 feet for the existing house facing Angelo Drive; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 13.3 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 21.7 feet for the proposed addition facing Angelo Drive; and Waver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback -- 10 feet off the required 30.7 feet to a distance of 20.7 feet for the existing house from the lot line on the north side. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a non-conforming addition onto the east and south side of the house. Peter S. Knutson and Angie Jerdee were in attendance. Staff Liaison Grimes told the Board that the owners want to expand the house and garage. He said that Mr. Knutson had provided several drawings to describe the expansion. Grimes expounded on the necessary variances required. Grimes noted that the applicant had wanted a garage larger than 1,000 sq.ft. and was told by staff that the City does not allow the square footage of a garage to exceed 1,000 sq.ft. . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 1997 Page 2 . Peter Knutson came forward to explain his plan telling the Board that the existing house is a reverse walkout, meaning that he enters his house on Angelo through the lower level. He said his plan is to construct a front entrance going to the upper level. Knutson said that the proposal is to also enlarge the master bedroom, add a deck and enlarge the garage area. 1573 Member Swedberg asked why the applicant wanted a 35 foot deep expansion (entire depth of the house) and Knutson answered to accommodate a deck and enlarge a bedroom. Swedberg noted that a portion of the roof of the proposed garage addition would become the deck. Knutson said that the current garage is 20' x 27' and is too small to store his lawn mower in and park his truck. Shaffer asked if the size of the garage was planned to accommodate the deck. Planning Commissioner Representative Groger asked if the original reason for the expansion. was to enlarge the garage. Knutson answered that he wants to change the front entry and add definition to the look of the house. Swedberg asked the applicant if he knew about the entrance and the size of the garage when he bought the house. Knutson said yes but he didn't like it, and didn't know he would need a variance to change it. Swedberg questioned whether the reason for the change was to improve the entry and then the other changes followed. Knutson responded yes and added that he now has the money to remodel. Groger asked Knutson if he considered other options for the entrance, such as changing the stairs. Knutson answered yes, but that the best option was putting the stairs outside. . Shaffer said that his biggest concern was the amount of encroachment into the front yard and that the proposed entry and garage are both large and imposing on the neighborhood. He commented that all the other houses along that street are pretty well in alignment. Shaffer said that he would prefer to see the applicant change the entry and expand the house in another direction. He said that the three car garage was a minimal intrusion, but the 36 foot depth of the garage is a problem. Swedberg agreed. Shaffer and Groger both indicated their preference to maintain the 35 foot setback since it impacts on the entire neighborhood. Shaffer explained that the Board strives to maintain the front yard setback unless there is a hardship. Shaffer and Groger agreed that there is no hardship in this case. Swedberg asked what other options were considered. Knutson answered that if the staircase is inside it cuts into the living space. He pointed out that there must be a staircase to get up to the upper level of the split level whether it is inside or outside. Knutson continued that the neighbors have not objected to his request. Swedberg stated that he is sympathetic to finding another entrance into the house and asked about other ways of getting inside, to which Knutson responded that this is the architect's best choice. Groger said that the proposed garage addition, extending another 9 feet towards the street is a problem and asked how important the three car garage was to Knutson. Knutson said it is not that important. . Polachek suggested building the stairs on a 900 angle which would reduce the encroachment to 4 or 5 feet. He believes the Board would be more amenable to a smaller variance setback. Shaffer suggested having the steps moved to where the proposed garage addition is and placing the bedroom addition onto another side of the house. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 1997 Page 3 1574 Shaffer suggested the Board postpone a decision for one or two months. Grimes explained that if the Board denies the request, the applicant can appeal to the City Council. Knutson stated that he does not want to do that. Shaffer explained that if it the request is delayed, the applicant can come back with another plan without going through the entire process and paying another fee. Grimes suggested that Knutson go back to the architect with the feedback from the Board. Shaffer suggested breaking up the length of the house with different materials. . MOVED by Polachek and seconded by Swedberg and motion carried unanimously to continue Mr. Knutson's request for up to two months to allow the applicant to come back with a revised plan. Groger suggested giving the owner some options. Knutson summarized that the size of the garage and the entry seem to be the problem. Knutson asked if an exterior staircase is considered part of the house and was told yes by Grimes. 7551 Olympia Street (Map 15) (97-10-42) Curtis A. Herron Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback -- 5.3 feet off the required 11.3 feet to a distance of 6.0 feet for the proposed deck on the south side of the house. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a non-conforming 9' x 26' deck which may include a 9' x 16' three-season room. . Curtis A. Herron was in attendance along with the next door neighbors, Richard and JoAnn Minarik. Grimes explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a deck onto the rear of his house where a deteriorating deck was removed recently. He said that a permit was never pulled by the previous owner for the original deck. Grimes reviewed the request saying that the proposed deck would be built 6 feet from the side property line. Grimes also said that the applicant would like to have a three-season room on a portion of the proposed deck. He noted that the applicant had not made up his mind at the time of submittal whether he would be adding the three-season room. Mr. Herron came forward and told the Board that the proposed deck would be 2 feet wider than the original deck. Groger asked about the sliding glass door that leads nowhere. Herron explained that there was a screened-in sun porch there originally. He wants to replicate what he purchased originally. Swedberg asked if it would be an open deck or a three season porch and Herron responded that it would be a screened-in porch. Herron said that he had looked into a three-season porch and found it to be too expensive. Shaffer asked where the porch would sit and was told on the west half of the proposed deck which would be located on the west half of the house facing the south. Swedberg asked if he would screen in 2/3's of the deck. Herron responded that it seems more like half. Grimes pointed out that a drawing from Menards does not include a roof. Groger asked about the proposed roof for the screened-in porch. Herron answered that it would not be corrugated fiberglass as before, it would be a continuation of the new roof to be installed. . Swedberg asked what the building code says for a three-season porch and Grimes responded that it must have proper footings and a soil test must be done. Groger asked about the neighbors' opinions and Herron responded that the neighbor most affected is here tonight. Grimes stated that Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 1997 Page 4 . since this is a corner lot there is not much yard to the south. Swedberg said that this is a minimum deck or screened-in porch and he is inclined to go along with it. He added. that owners should be able to have some kind of deck or porch. 1575 Shaffer asked if anyone else wanted to speak and Richard Minarik, the neighbor on the south, came forward. Mr. Minarik questioned the footage between his house and the proposed deck being less than what was indicated in the hearing notice. Grimes told Mr. Minarik a survey was done and it shows that there is 15 feet from the Herron house to the lot line, and that if the variance is approved there would be 6 feet from the deck to the lot line. Groger asked Mr. Minarik if he had any concerns regarding the proposed screened-in porch and Minarik answered no. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Polachek and motion carried unanimously to approve the variances as noted above in order to allow for the construction of a deck and screened-in porch onto the southwest side of the house. 2501 Parkview Boulevard (Map 1) (97-10-44) Carole Beach Request: Waiver of Section 11.21 , Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 17 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 18 feet for the proposed two-stall garage facing Parkview Boulevard; and . Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback -- 2.2 feet off the required 11.7 feet to a distance of 9.5 feet for the existing house at its closest point to the north lot line; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback -- 8.3 feet off the required 11.7 feet to a distance of 3.4 feet for the proposed garage at its closest point to the north lot line; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Structures -- 1 foot off the required 5 feet to a distance of 4 feet for the existing shed to the north lot line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a non-conforming 20' x 22' two-stall garage to be placed in front of the existing tuck-under garage. Carole Beach, Christine Peterson and Pamela Svihel were in attendance. . Grimes explained that Ms. Beach is proposing to construct a two-stall garage in front of the existing tuck-under garage because she cannot get her vehicle into the garage. Grimes noted that staff had asked Ms. Beach to look at other alternatives, such as the back yard. Ms. Beach commented to staff that she did not want to remove the mature trees on that side of the property in order to put a driveway to the back yard. Grimes noted that other homes along the street have tuck-under garages, and that one of these houses recently received a variance for a garage to the front, but the variance was not as much as the one being requested today. Grimes told the Board that this is a tough issue because there are not many alternatives. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 1997 Page 5 1576 Carole Beach came forward and stated that she bought the house on August 28, 1997. She commented that she has a Jeep Cherokee which will not fit into the garage. She stated that there is a dip at the floor entrance of the garage, and the garage door will not close. Swedberg asked if she knew this when she bought the property and she answered yes, and she assumed she would be able to do something about it. Shaffer asked if the floor of the garage could be lowered and Beach said that she didn't look into that. She added that the garage is a step up from the house. . Swedberg agreed that this is a substandard garage and suggested that she may want to rebuild the garage. Shaffer stated that she would have to redo the driveway quite a bit. Polachek asked if it would be acceptable if the garage was a little bigger and wider and Swedberg asked if she only wants a useable garage. Beach answered yes, she wants a useable and energy efficient garage. Grimes asked about expanding the garage to the north. Shaffer pointed out that there is a room over the garage and asked if she could do without that room. Beach answered no. Shaffer pointed out that this is a dramatic infringement into the setback. He added that the Board wants to accommodate her but does not want to go into the front setback to the degree she is requesting. Grimes asked if she considered the south side of her back yard and she answered that there is a large maple and two spruces where the driveway would go. She added that she would need to use the neighbor's driveway. Grimes suggested that she could get an easement to use the neighbor's driveway, which has been done before. Groger pointed out that the neighbor's driveway may go a bit over her lot line. Beach asked what experiences the City has had with shared driveways and Polachek stated that it is a legal matter. Shaffer asked about the retaining wall on the north side. Beach said there is a small retaining wall. Grimes asked if Beach wants to keep the trees and she answered that the trees were part of her decision to purchase the house. Sell asked how old the driveway was. Beach said it looks new. Sell said that the new driveway is a disservice because Beach can't get into the garage. Shaffer stated that it is not the job of the BZA to redesign a plan. Sell suggested that the request be deferred, allowing the owner to come back with other ideas. . MOVED by Sell, seconded by Polachek and motion carried unanimously to continue Ms. Beach's request for up to six months. 1339 Valders Avenue North (Map 20) (97-10-43) Alice and Ann Hinnenkamp Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 14.87 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 20.13 feet for the existing house facing Knoll Street. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a conforming addition onto the southwest side of the house. Bill Strong, architect for Alice and Ann Hinnenkamp, was in attendance. Grimes explained that the applicant has started an addition on the house and has submitted a "hold harmless" letter to the City of Golden Valley. The administrative decision to allow them to go forward was based on the facts that it is a conforming addition, the only variance needed is on the existing house, and the construction season is coming to an end. According to the survey, the . existing house was constructed 14.87 feet closer to the lot line on Knoll Street. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 1997 Page 6 . Shaffer stated that this is an administrative matter. Swedberg added that the addition is consistent with the neighborhood. 1577 MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance as noted above. 1820 Mendelssohn Avenue North (Map 20) (97-10-45) Paul Haiduk Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 18 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 17 feet for the existing house facing Earl Street; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 18 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 17 feet for the proposed living addition facing Earl Street; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(3) Side Yard Setback -- 4.5 feet off the required 10.6 feet to a distance of 6.1 feet for the existing house to the south lot line; and . Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(3) Side Yard Setback -- 4.5 feet off the required 10.6 feet to a distance of 6.1 feet for the proposed living addition to the south lot line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a non-conforming 13' x 3D' living addition onto the house facing Mendelssohn Avenue and the construction of a 5' x 22' garage addition onto the south side of the existing garage. Paul Hajduk was in attendance. Grimes explained that this variance is for a 13' x 3D' living addition facing Mendelssohn Avenue and a 5' x 22' addition onto the south side of the existing garage. The garage addition would meet setback requirements. The property is on a corner lot and the house is only 17 feet from the Earl Street. A variance for the house is needed to allow for the construction. Shaffer asked which side is considered the front and was told Mendelssohn, but two front setbacks must be met due the house sitting on a corner lot. Grimes told the Board that the alley behind the existing garage has now been vacated, adding 6 feet to the lot. A variance for a detached garage was approved in 1975, but staff is unclear why variances were not addressed for the existing house from Earl Street and the side lot line at that time. Paul Hajduk came forward and Shaffer asked if he had anything to add. Hajduk stated that when he first configured his garage addition he did not know that it wouldn't be conforming. He said the addition to the garage now being proposed would meet setback requirements. . Shaffer asked what kind of living space is proposed for the house addition. Hajduk responded a living and family room on the main floor and a bedroom in the basement. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 1997 Page 7 1578 Swedberg stated that this is a situation consistent with the neighborhood as all the houses are about the same distance from the street. . MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Polachek and motion carried unanimously to approve the variances as requested. 1109 Zane Avenue North (Map 12) (97-10-46) LPI (Liberty Carton) Request: Waiver of Section 11.35, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- .80 f~et off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.2 feet for the existing building facing Zane Avenue; and Waiver of Section 11.35, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- .80 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.2 feet for the lack of landscaping along Zane Avenue; and Waiver of Section 11.35, Subd. 7(C)(3) Side Yard Setback -- .23 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of 19.77 feet for the existing building at its closest point to the lot line on the north side; and Waiver of Section 11.35, Subd. 7(C)(4) Side Yard Setback -- 7 feet off the . required 10 feet to a distance of 3 feet for the lack of landscaping on the southwest side of the lot; and Waiver of Section 11.35, Subd. 7(C)(4) Side Yard Setback -- 10 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 0 feet for the lack of landscaping on the west side of the lot; and Waiver of Section 11.35, Subd. 8(B) Storage -- To allow for no screening of semi-trucks and equipment located along Zane Avenue on the southeast side of the lot; and Waiver of Section 11.70, Subd. 7(C) Design Standards -- To eliminate the requirement of curb and gutter at the existing paved area at this time. Purpose: To construct a driveway along the south and west side. of the building which would allow semi-trucks to access a rear loading dock. Ron Lifson, Vice President and General Manager of LPI; and Neil Johnson and Kent Carlson with Ryan Construction were in attendance. Grimes explained that LPI wants to lease space at 1109 Zane Avenue, from KWA Metals and to do so it needs docks for the incoming trucks. The applicant is proposing to have a driveway constructed on the south side of the building, which would wrap around the west side of the building and over to the proposed loading docks. These docks would be located on the northwest side of . the building. LPI would be using semi-trailer trucks to bring in a storage product. Grimes continued by saying that the proposed road would infringe on railroad right-of-way. The applicant has requested an easement from the railroad in order to construct this driveway. Grimes said that due Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 1997 Page 8 . to the lack of usable land on the north, a driveway would be impossible to construct. He also noted that according to the Fire Marshal, the applicant must obtain from the property owner to the north an easement for a "fire-lane only" driveway in order for emergency vehicles to access the back of the building. 1579 Grimes reviewed the required variances and the need for LPI to get easements from the railroad and adjacent property to the north. He said that prior to any building permit being issued the City must receive copies of the filed easement agreements. Grimes told the Board that the applicants would rather not screen the required area on the site, but staff is recommending that the applicant meet code requirements for screening. Groger stated that this is a large building and asked where parking is located. The applicant told him that parking is more than adequate in a parking lot on the east side of Zane Avenue and in a small lot in front of the building. The applicant said that the space across the street is zoned to be used for automobile parking only and that no trucks park in this lot. Swedberg observed that there are two items here before them -- Board action on the variances and easement agreements. Grimes stated that the Board could approve the variances contingent to the applicant obtaining the necessary easements before any building permits are issued. . Groger asked where this property is in relation to Minnegasco and if it is near the storage tanks. Grimes reviewed this with the Board. Ron Lifson, Vice President and General Manager of LPI; and Neil Johnson and Kent Carlson with Ryan Construction, came forward. Carlson stated that LPI is excited about this project, that LPI is a good corporate citizen and eager to improve the building. Polachek asked why they are requesting no screening on the site. Carlson said that screening could be a security issue, but would screen if it is required. Lifson stated that there currently is fencing and the approval could be subject to keeping it. Sell observed that the existing fence would be opaque or raised up to 6 feet for screening but the materials are higher than 6 feet. He asked what this would accomplish. Grimes pointed out that the code requires a completely enclosed fence/screening not less than 6 feet high. Lifson stated that he is not sure of the height of the fence. Sell asked if a passing police car would see what was going on. Grimes said, according to the applicant, there have been problems with materials being stolen in the middle of the night. The facility is locked and has TV security but there are still losses. Shaffer suggested that if the area was shielded, the materials won't be so obvious. Grimes stated that the City of Golden Valley would rather not see a slated fence. Swedberg and Sell agreed that slated fences lose its appeal after several years. Grimes suggested that another option is landscaping; however, code specifies a 100% opaque wall or fence. Swedberg stated that he is bothered with the issue of the opaque covering. Johnson and Carlson stated that it is a non-issue as they would put up the required fencing, if requested. . Shaffer asked about the easement from the railroad. Lifson stated that he has been in contact with the railroad every two or three days. He noted that LPI would not proceed without obtaining the easement agreement. Lifson also said that in talking with the railroad, it looks as though the applicant could have an easement agreement within three weeks. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 1997 Page 9 1580 Sell asked what LPI would be using the space for. Ufson answered it would be a distribution center to consolidate recycled paper loads. Ufson continued to explain the operation. Johnson noted that the business owner to the north is in favor of the request. Carlson assured the Board that they would add access to the rear of the property and enhance safety. . Groger asked Grimes to clarify the variance for curb and gutter. Grimes explained that a new parking lot should include concrete curb and gutter. The applicant is requesting that the existing parking lot remain as it is without curb and gutter. He also said that if the parking lot is rebuilt, curb and gutter would be addressed at that time. Swedberg asked if curb and gutter was not required when the parking lot was initially built, and he was told yes. Shaffer asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak and no one came forward. Grimes told the Board that they could direct the question of screening to come before the Board of Building Review for them to review. Groger stated that he is comfortable leaving it to the Inspections Department and the Public Safety Department. Grimes agreed that they would be more stringent than the Board. Shaffer added that the Board could recommend that a slat fence not be used. MOVED by Polachek, seconded by Groger, and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for variances with the exception of the screening request. The Board directed the applicant to screen the area in question and slat material could not be used. The Board noted that the . screening must be approved by the City Building official. Tract A (5800 Duluth Street) and Tract B (Map 11) (97-10-47) LOGIS (current property owners: Charles T. And Carol A. Turner and Mark C. and Shirlev J. Reinertson) Request: Waiver of Section 11.45, Subd. 5(A)(1) Front Yard Setback -- 11.04 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 23.96 feet for the proposed building at its closest point to the lot line on Duluth Street; and Waiver of Section 11.45, Subd. 5(A)(1) Front Yard Setback -- 28.4 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 6.6 feet for the proposed parking lot at its closest point to the lot line on Duluth Street; and Waiver of Section 11.45, Subd. 5(B)(2) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks -- 10 feet off the required 30 feet to a distance of 20 feet for the proposed building to the lot line on the north side; and Waiver of Section 11.45, Subd. 5(B)(2) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks -- 10 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 5 feet for the proposed parking lot anc;t trash area to the lot line on the north side; and Waiver of Section 11.45, Subd. 5(8)(3) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks -- 5 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 5 feet for the parking lot . infringing into the side setback to the east; and . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 1997 Page 10 1581 Waiver of Section 11.70, Subd. 7{F) Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations (Design Standards) -- 2 feet off the required 20 foot depth to 18 feet for all parking stalls on the site. Purpose: The above waivers would allow for the construction of a 2-story, 14,000 square foot office building to be used by LOGIS in the Business and Professional Office (B&PO) Zoning District Mike Garris, Executive Director for LOGIS; Dave Kennedy, legal representative for LOGIS; John Pope and Kenneth Schenk of Pope Associates (architects); Jackson S. Hipps, Vice President of The O'Neill Real Estate Group; Diana Thompson, real estate broker representing the sellers; and Bill Teng, personal representative of the estate of Chung Wei Teng (business to the east); were in attendance. Staff Liaison Mark Grimes explained that the Planning Commission recommended approved to the City Council of the consolidation of the two lots into one. He told the Board that the City Council will hear the LOGIS request at its meeting of November 18. Grimes reviewed the proposal noting that LOGIS, which provides computer and other information services to cities including Golden Valley, has a purchase agreement to buy this property and build a 14,000 square foot office building. LOGIS currently employs 28 employees. Grimes told the Board that 56 parking spaces are required and LOGIS is proposing 60 parking spaces because of the training sessions its holds. Grimes reviewed the variance requests. He reported to the Board that the area to the north of the proposal is zoned Institutional, with a Business and Professional Office zoning to the east. He clarified for the Board, that Pope in its narrative, requested a landscape variance for the islands in the parking lot, and noted that this type of request is addressed by the Board of Building Review. Grimes told the Board that the City is requesting from LOGIS an easement along Bassett Creek, on the west side of the site, for a trail. He said that the City's Forester is concerned with losing a stand of prairie oak trees, which is also located on the northwest side of the proposed building. Grimes said that he has discussed with the City Engineer the possibility of making the pond smaller in order to save the stand of trees. Polachek asked if the pond would be fenced and Groger stated that Golden Valley doesn't fence creeks. Chair Shaffer asked if the parking lot would drain into the pond and was told yes. Planning Commis'sioner Groger asked how the parking lot would drain into the pond. Grimes said that would need to be worked out. He also said that a representative for the small office building to the east was present tonight and that some of his concerns are how close the parking lot is to the property line, snow storage and drainage. Groger asked about the grade of the driveways. Grimes suggested letting the applicant respond to this question but added that they would like to keep it as level as possible, maybe a 5% slope. Member Sell observed that the problem is coming out of the parking lot, not entering it. Grimes stated that there is a lot of traffic on Duluth Street and Hennepin County usually allows only one driveway per lot. Swedberg stated that the obvious solution is to limit the building to one story which would reduce the size of required parking and meet City Code requirements. Grimes stated that LOGIS needs 14,000 sq.ft. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 1997 Page 11 1582 Grimes informed the Board that a Planning Commission member was concerned about there being only 5 feet between the parking lot and east property line which would provide, during the winter months, minimal setback space for snow storage. Grimes commented that the trash area is only 5 feet from the property line and sits in the landscape area which would require a 5 foot variance. Staff would also like to see the trash area enclosed. . Swedberg asked about the 9'x 18' parking spaces. Grimes responded saying that the driveway aisle width is more than adequate at 24 feet and the applicant could designate some spaces as "compact car" only if they are located along a curb line where the front of the cars overhang the curb. Swedberg asked if there is any consensus among neighboring cities to which Grimes answered no. Also, LOGIS could tell its employees where to park and leave larger spaces for visitors. Shaffer asked about the handicap and van spaces of 18 feet against the retaining wall and Grimes answered that the width is more of a concern; handicap spaces must be as close as possible to the entrance. Swedberg asked if the BZA has the authority to change the size of a handicap space and Grimes said it is regulated by the Building Code. Swedberg asked if they could shorten the drive aisle to 20 feet and spaces to 18 feet and Grimes answered that only the perimeter spaces are 18 feet. Shaffer asked if the BZA can ask staff to research other cities parking codes. Grimes said yes and he would put it on his list of things to do. Shaffer asked if the applicant or other representatives wished to speak; John Pope and Jackson Hipps came forward. Pope pointed out that the spaces are 18 feet in length, plus the curb overhang. Shaffer asked how high the retaining wall would be and was told about 5 feet. Pope noted that the grades would be approximately 4% to 5% including the entrance. Shaffer asked how . much higher the lot would be than the street and Pope stated that they have not completed the engineering study at this time. Sell asked about the difference in elevations from the LOGIS site to the office building site to the east. Pope said the office building to the east would be 10-12 feet lower. Swedberg asked for Grimes' ideas on the Planning Commission's suggestion of shifting the building 5 feet to the west in order to increase the landscape area on the east side. Pope agreed that it would be possible and they want to do nice landscaping. Sell asked if there is a need for a 5 foot walk. Grimes said that sidewalks need to be at least 5 feet in width. Groger stated that the Duluth setback is his concern and asked what other plans were considered. Pope stated that they tried a number of different schemes to take advantage of the creek and have a minimal impact on the neighborhood. Swedberg asked about the pond and Pope stated that there would be standing water only after a rainfall. Grimes said that LOGIS could work with the City Forester regarding the size of the pond and work to save a grove of prairie oaks. Swedberg asked if the grass in the pond would be mowed and Pope answered yes, noting that the pond would empty in a matter of hours after a rainfall. Shaffer asked again about the 18 foot parking spaces, especially the handicap and van space. Pope said the handicap space is wide enough and the depth is 18 feet. The handicap space could be striped at 20 feet. Shaffer noted the 24 foot drive aisle. Pope responded that they could slide . the handicap stalls over to the 20 foot area and the delivery van parking could also be moved. Garris agreed. Groger asked about parking under the building and was told it is too expensive. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 1997 Page 12 1583 Swedberg asked what is on the north and Grimes answered City-owned open space. Swedberg asked if the building could shifted to the north and Grimes explained that it could be shifted but Pope wants unprotected windows and the Uniform Building Code specifies that windows must be protected if they are closer to the lot line. Grimes observed that perhaps the UBC would grant a variance since it is unlikely that the City would build on the adjacent property. Pope stated that if that could be worked out they would be happy to move the building back which would decrease the front setback variance. Pope talked about the possibility of redesigning the ponding in front of the building along Duluth Street. Groger stated that he was not happy with the front of the building being so close to Duluth and is not comfortable with the parking facing Duluth Street. He commented that this would be a new construction and should not require so many variances, and continued by saying that this is a prominent location and a new building should meet the setbacks. He asked about taking away 4 parking spaces and moving the parking lot 9 feet back from Duluth Street. Shaffer added that this would help with drainage. Grimes suggested making an arrangement with Basset Creek Office Building on days of heavy parking. Sell stated that there are only 20 employees there in the day time. Pope added that at user group meetings, once or twice a month, there would be 30 people in the building. He said that he was concerned about removing 4 parking places. Grimes asked about eliminating the parking lot islands, and also suggested reducing the staff parking spaces to 8.5 feet to pick up one more space. Groger stated that if the building moves back 9 feet, making it more in line with property to the east, he could work with that. Shaffer stated his concern about the front variance. Groger asked about the time frame for construction and Garris stated that time is not the issue - they need the space for existing staff and there is very little give in the square footage. Shaffer asked if the building could be wider and less deep. Grimes stated that it could move somewhat to the west. Groger stated that he would like to see it work but he is not comfortable with the plan before the Board. Shaffer asked if others in the audience wished to speak. Bill T eng came forward representing the property to the east. They are excited about something happening next to them but their concerns are the difference in the height of the parking lots above their property to the east, and how to control snow plowing and drainage from the LOGIS property onto his property. He believes that if the snow is pushed toward them it could melt into their parking lot. He suggested that maybe a fence would discourage snow being pushed up to the lot line. Teng said he was also concerned about lighting. Sell asked Teng what their working hours are and Teng answered mostly daytime with some night hours. Grimes stated that maybe some landscaping along the east property line would help to screen headlights. He added that new parking lot lights are now baffled and reflect down. Teng stated that he is more concerned about the difference in grades. Polachek asked if there is a slope and was told yes, that currently there are shrubs and a wild area. Teng said that someone could fall off the parking lot due to the grade difference. Grimes stated that the City could require landscaping and baffles on parking lot lighting. Shaffer asked for a discussion on how to resolve this dilemma. Swedberg asked again why the building was not placed further east and Garris stated that it is the same problem no matter where the building is placed. Sell pointed out that if the building was pushed east and the parking west, the variance request would almost go away. Swedberg pointed out that it would limit parking. j Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 1997 Page 13 Swedberg asked about building the same number of square feet in three stories, thereby reducing the footprint. Pope stated that there are other considerations for a three-story building such as an elevator and more parking spaces. . Shaffer summarized the possibilities to reduce the number of variances by moving the building to the north by about 10 feet, lose 4 parking spaces, and/or move the parking lot to the west, closer to the building. Groger stated his interest in the City regrading an area or landscaping an area that would be agreeable to the neighbor. Swedberg observed that the main problem is that the building is too big for the site. The property has been around for a long time and he is willing to make concessions but this building is too big for the property. Shaffer suggested that this request be carried over to another meeting. Grimes asked the applicant about their timing. LOGIS would like to discuss the issuance of bonds, while the interest rates are still favorable, at the next City Council meeting. After a discussion of possible meeting dates, November 3, 1997, was suggested. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to continue this item to November 3, 1997 at 7pm. III. Other Business No other business. . IV. Adjournment Hearing no further business, Chair Shaffer adjourned the meeting at ~~ Robert Shaffer, Chair Mark Grimes, Staff Liaison .